Re: [Talk-in] National Highway relations are unacceptably huuuuge!

2016-07-24 Thread Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) 
Hi,

Apologies if I have not seen to this earlier, but if measurements from OSM are 
crucial, then what about a route_master structure for the NHs and SHs 
(according to the guidance at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members)?

It would allow each direction to have its own relation and then we can easily 
get the average distance from the two. It just seems odd that only one side is 
measured.

— Amaroussi.

> On 24 Jul 2016, at 17:48, Naveen Francis  wrote:
> 
> Hi 
> 
> Statewise NH relations are created for more accurate NH lengths. 
> It is used is wikipedia directly. 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Highways_in_India_by_State#Andhra_Pradesh
>  
> ,
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_Kerala#National_Highways 
> )
> Appreciate if it is not changed, without any good proposals. 
> Lot of work has gone behind that. 
> Every month new highway notifications from govt gazatte are mapped. 
> Errors in NH are documented here. 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:India:National_Highways_(statewise) 
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> naveenpf 
> 
> 
> On 24 July 2016 at 17:05, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap)  > wrote:
> It appears there was an oversight in one of changesets for the NH44 
> relations, where I should have checked that the members were still in the 
> original NH44 relation. The error occurred when I was ordering the NH44 
> relation.
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2016, at 11:27, I Chengappa > > wrote:
>> 
>> Heinz_V has made relevant comments in a forum post at 
>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17851=3 
>> . I've not been 
>> paying attention to most road / route relations, but I understand that there 
>> has been a coherent mapping of national highways in India, mostly due to 
>> him, which has now been broken. As the discussion has primarily been there 
>> so far, I suggest that it should continue there. 
>> 
>> This discussion, between two users over one day and in a separate forum from 
>> that discussion, does not constitute general acceptance, even by default. 
>> Hence there is an argument for reverting the changes. 
>> 
>> On 21 July 2016 at 16:25, Arun Ganesh > > wrote:
>> This is looking good to me. It would be great to have a diary post on 
>> tools/workflow to do this. Have always found handling and modifying these 
>> relations painful.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) > > wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have set up NH765 as a prototype for the reformed relations - NH765 is a 
>> small route where it should be easy to fine tune the idea before full-scale 
>> conversion.
>> 
>> The base route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741 
>> ) would only contain 
>> sub-relations with for each State that it passes through with appropriate 
>> role names (as the E-route system already does).
>> 
>> The sub-relations, for Telangana 
>> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946 
>> ) and Andhra Pradesh 
>> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980 
>> ) in our case, would contain 
>> appropriately ordered ways, with the main route on top and links (slip 
>> roads) at the bottom.
>> 
>> I envisage that one relation for each state should be sufficient for the 
>> time being.
>> 
>> — Amaroussi.
>> ___
>> Talk-in mailing list
>> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Arun Ganesh
>> @planemad
>>  
>> ___
>> Talk-in mailing list
>> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-in mailing list
>> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Talk-in] National Highway relations are unacceptably huuuuge!

2016-07-24 Thread Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) 
It appears there was an oversight in one of changesets for the NH44 relations, 
where I should have checked that the members were still in the original NH44 
relation. The error occurred when I was ordering the NH44 relation.

> On 24 Jul 2016, at 11:27, I Chengappa  > wrote:
> 
> Heinz_V has made relevant comments in a forum post at 
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17851=3 
> . I've not been 
> paying attention to most road / route relations, but I understand that there 
> has been a coherent mapping of national highways in India, mostly due to him, 
> which has now been broken. As the discussion has primarily been there so far, 
> I suggest that it should continue there. 
> 
> This discussion, between two users over one day and in a separate forum from 
> that discussion, does not constitute general acceptance, even by default. 
> Hence there is an argument for reverting the changes. 
> 
> On 21 July 2016 at 16:25, Arun Ganesh  > wrote:
> This is looking good to me. It would be great to have a diary post on 
> tools/workflow to do this. Have always found handling and modifying these 
> relations painful.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap)  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have set up NH765 as a prototype for the reformed relations - NH765 is a 
> small route where it should be easy to fine tune the idea before full-scale 
> conversion.
> 
> The base route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741 
> ) would only contain 
> sub-relations with for each State that it passes through with appropriate 
> role names (as the E-route system already does).
> 
> The sub-relations, for Telangana 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946 
> ) and Andhra Pradesh 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980 
> ) in our case, would contain 
> appropriately ordered ways, with the main route on top and links (slip roads) 
> at the bottom.
> 
> I envisage that one relation for each state should be sufficient for the time 
> being.
> 
> — Amaroussi.
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arun Ganesh
> @planemad
>  
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-in] National Highway relations are unacceptably huuuuge!

2016-07-24 Thread I Chengappa 
Heinz_V has made relevant comments in a forum post at
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17851=3. I've not been
paying attention to most road / route relations, but I understand that
there has been a coherent mapping of national highways in India, mostly due
to him, which has now been broken. As the discussion has primarily been
there so far, I suggest that it should continue there.

This discussion, between two users over one day and in a separate forum
from that discussion, does not constitute general acceptance, even by
default. Hence there is an argument for reverting the changes.

On 21 July 2016 at 16:25, Arun Ganesh  wrote:

> This is looking good to me. It would be great to have a diary post on
> tools/workflow to do this. Have always found handling and modifying these
> relations painful.
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) <
> map...@minoa.li> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have set up NH765 as a prototype for the reformed relations - NH765 is
>> a small route where it should be easy to fine tune the idea before
>> full-scale conversion.
>>
>> The base route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741) would
>> only contain sub-relations with for each State that it passes through with
>> appropriate role names (as the E-route system already does).
>>
>> The sub-relations, for Telangana (
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946) and Andhra Pradesh (
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980) in our case, would
>> contain appropriately ordered ways, with the main route on top and links
>> (slip roads) at the bottom.
>>
>> I envisage that one relation for each state should be sufficient for the
>> time being.
>>
>> — Amaroussi.
>> ___
>> Talk-in mailing list
>> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Arun Ganesh
> @planemad
> 
>
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
>
>
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-in] National Highway relations are unacceptably huuuuge!

2016-07-21 Thread Arun Ganesh 
This is looking good to me. It would be great to have a diary post on
tools/workflow to do this. Have always found handling and modifying these
relations painful.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have set up NH765 as a prototype for the reformed relations - NH765 is a
> small route where it should be easy to fine tune the idea before full-scale
> conversion.
>
> The base route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741) would
> only contain sub-relations with for each State that it passes through with
> appropriate role names (as the E-route system already does).
>
> The sub-relations, for Telangana (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946) and Andhra Pradesh (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980) in our case, would
> contain appropriately ordered ways, with the main route on top and links
> (slip roads) at the bottom.
>
> I envisage that one relation for each state should be sufficient for the
> time being.
>
> — Amaroussi.
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
>



-- 
Arun Ganesh
@planemad

___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-in] National Highway relations are unacceptably huuuuge!

2016-07-21 Thread Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) 
Hi,

I have set up NH765 as a prototype for the reformed relations - NH765 is a 
small route where it should be easy to fine tune the idea before full-scale 
conversion.

The base route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3871741) would only 
contain sub-relations with for each State that it passes through with 
appropriate role names (as the E-route system already does).

The sub-relations, for Telangana 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826946) and Andhra Pradesh 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5826980) in our case, would contain 
appropriately ordered ways, with the main route on top and links (slip roads) 
at the bottom.

I envisage that one relation for each state should be sufficient for the time 
being.

— Amaroussi.
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-in] National Highway relations are unacceptably huuuuge!

2016-07-21 Thread Arun Ganesh 
Support this, right now NH members are part of two relations each, the
state and national level one. Given that many highways are being upgraded
and byapss sections are being added, this is twice as hard to maintain.

What is the process to change them like the European model?

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am currently proof-reading the National and State Highway relations in
> Hyderabad and Telangana.
>
> However, while I note that there are state-level National Highway
> relations (such as https://openstreetmap.org/relation/5803164 for the
> NH44 in Telangana), the core National Highway relations (such as
> https://openstreetmap.org/relation/3189954 for NH44) are ridiculously
> huge with more than 3,000 members, which causes internet browser to slow
> down. It is also six times longer than Greece’s main national road, the EO1.
>
> Right now, the main OpenStreetMap site is refusing to load the main NH44
> relation because they are so huge (hence the error message “Sorry, the data
> for the relation with the id 3189954, took too long to retrieve.”), and
> editing them is also slowing down JOSM significantly. I am proposing that
> the core National Highway relations should adopt a system similar to the
> E-Road network (for example,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2092611), where it references the
> state-level relations instead of every way. Another benefit of such a
> system is that international users can exclude the disputed sections where
> it is legal to show India in its widely-recognised outline.
>
> — Amaroussi.
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
>



-- 
Arun Ganesh
@planemad

___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in